How odd that liberals on the U.S. Supreme Court have come down on the side of influential corporations and their profits, and against less resourceful homeowners. At least that's the view of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor who wrote the dissenting opinion in Thursday's appalling 5-4 decision that allows local governments to seize homes, businesses and other private property to hand over to big profit-driven developers.
For some, it should be the conservative justices who would endorse an assault on homeownership to make big business happy. But it wasn't. The court's three most conservative justices--William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas--joined O'Connor in the dissent. The court's most liberal justices were solidly on the side of this expansion of government's eminent domain powers at the expense of homeowners.
To understand how court liberals made this remarkable jump over the political fence, it helps to understand the mindset of the American Planning Society, based in Chicago. The group, which argued before the court in support of this outcome, embodies the view that government, not the marketplace, should decide where growth occurs--in central cities and inner suburbs.
Ah yes, nothing like central planning to ensure a thriving economy, isn't that right, comrade?
Toward that end, the 37,000-member group of urban planners and other like-minded individuals believes in the wisdom of condemning property and handing it over to economic interests that could better use it for the "public good"--the public good being whatever local government decides, as the group spelled out in a friend-of-the-court brief filed with the high court.
It is 1950s urban renewal all over again, but worse.
Back then, entire neighborhoods were wiped out so they could be replaced by public uses such as highways, parks and civic centers. One example: Chicago condemned miles of "slums" to build its infamous string of public housing high-rises along the Dan Ryan Expressway. Whatever the value of the public housing (much of it now has been torn down), the point is that the condemnation was for a public use--public housing for the impoverished. Liberals came to abhor "urban removal" and other wholesale leveling of neighborhoods. Instead, they reveled in the overarching value of small, cohesive, diverse, vital but poor neighborhoods. The view probably was best enunciated in Jane Jacobs' revered book, "The Death and Life of Great American Cities." In this, they are right; the healthiest cities are made up of healthy, human-scale neighborhoods.
At the same time, liberals and urban planners hated the sprawling shopping centers, office parks and supposed absence of a sense of neighborhood that characterized the suburbs. Thus, the American Planning Society says it is "centrally concerned" with redirecting growth back to central cities and inner-ring suburbs. A "critically important" tool to carry out this goal is eminent domain, to allow so-called community development agencies or corporations to build job-rich and tax-producing business and commercial development. So, here's the irony: A liberal Supreme Court now makes possible the destruction of human-scale neighborhoods, with their ma-and-pa stores and affordable housing, in order to build despised, but revenue-generating, shopping malls and office parks--usually at the expense of poor people.
As O'Connor said in her strongly worded dissent: "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms. As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The founders cannot have intended this perverse result."
How have we gotten to this point, where conservative judges are standing up for persons with fewer resources and liberal justices are backing the play of the powerful and influential? Perhaps the cynic would say it's because liberals salivate over any chance to enlarge government power, and because conservatives are willing to go to any lengths--even to backing the little guy--to advance property rights.
The more important question, though, is: Is it right? The court has denied homeowners a constitutional protection against assaults by out-of-control local government. In response, those wishing to protect the little guy will have to be more vigilant at the local level, and ultimately fight to replace those elected officials who don't respect the basic right of domicile.
Or, better yet, to replace the Supreme Court justices who endorsed this assault. Dennis Byrne, a Chicago-area writer and consultant
Posted by: Steve ||
06/27/2005 14:38 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[12 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I know some urban planners. As individuals they are decent human beings who really think they're doing the best thing for their communities. As a group they have a contempt for homeowners and small businesspeople that is breathtaking. They think they know what's best for their community and they are contemptuous of those who don't defer to their opinion. Before this ruling they at least had to jump through some hoops to act on their contempt, but now they will do what they want, when they want, and nothing will stop them. Be very, very afraid.
I wonder what the 5 Justices will say when the first physical confrontation occurs - the first gunbattle, for instance. Think they'll feel anything? Anything at all when John Q. Citizen, lifelong resident of Anytown, USA, is killed by Sheriff's deputies forced by Court Order to remove him from his "condemned" property so Engulf & Devour can put up a strip center with an Albertson's and a Starbucks as anchors?
#3
Chalk up another victory for American leftists.
The SCOTUS Kelo ruling is simply another slip on the slope to making private property, arguably the basis for all other citizen's rights, a relic of future history.
This is my letter submitted to the editors of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in reference to the linked story above.
How ironic that, immediately following the Supreme Court's decision on the Kelo case, an original copy of the Bill of Rights will be displayed here in Pittsburgh. I assume it is purely for entertainment and nostalgia value, as the Supreme Court has once again displayed their contempt for the original document, particularly the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause.
To any reader who views the document, I request that you verify the clause "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation," is not followed by "or for private development by someone richer, prettier, and more socially acceptable than you!" as the Supremes have interpreted it.
I'd address the Second Amendment as well, but I don't have the space or time for that rant.
Posted by: Dar ||
06/27/2005 11:20 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
There is, obviously, some confusion regards the role of SCOTUS. Simply put, it's not the Pretty Nifty Court or even the Federal Final Word Court - it's the Supreme Court - its rulings trump - from sea to shining sea, period. That's why it's called the Supreme Court.
All law in the US, whether local, state or federal, must (if challenged - an interesting point for the lawyers to play with) be constitutional. I think most here "get it" in that regard. If a law is challenged and found unconsitutional, it is void, null, dead. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the Constitution means. When they rule upon a case, they are interpreting the meaning of the Consitution. Once a ruling is issued, unless superceded by a subsequent Constitutional Ammendment or further "interpreted" by a later Supreme Court ruling, henceforth, that is what the Constitution means.
News Flash: Supreme Court rulings supercede all levels of law throughout the US. If there is a law on the books anywhere in the US, local, state, or federal, that conflicts with a Supreme Court Ruling - it is defacto unconstitutional. Once a ruling is issued, all courts, whether local, state, or federal, are BOUND by that ruling and will NOT find contrary to such a ruling. It is the same as if it was spelled out in the Constitution. There is no recourse, anywhere, period, to a Supreme Court ruling other than by Amendment to the Constitution.
'zat clear enough?
Regards the Kelo Ruling, any level of Govt can force sale, through eminent domain, of any private entity's property to another entity, private or public, if they deem it to be of benefit to the public. And that can be for something as simple as the new owner promises to build ("upgrade" - per the ruling) something that will generate more tax revenue, thus meeting the, now, almost sole criteria of being of benefit to the public.
If any level of government employs eminent domain to take your home or business, regardless of whether the sale is to a public or private entity, there is no recourse save this:
The ONLY criteria that appears to be of standing per the ruling is the perceived public benefit. You would have to show a greater public benefit than the sale would produce in order to get a court to accept a case contesting the sale.
No law or court, at any level, stands against a SCOTUS ruling. Any contrary law is defacto unconstitutional and no court, at any level, will rule contrary to a Supreme Court ruling - as it is guaranteed to be overturned. Period. End of story.
As long as you're not going to make them accountable to the people [derive their powers from the direct consent of the govern] you'll going to be hammered by your 'betters'. Even in the non-technology era of 1776, it didn't take this long for, what would be, the founding fathers to figure out that power without accountability results in tyranny. There are no 'better' judges and just waiting for appointments isn't the solution. Senators were not directly elected by the populus until the XVII admendment a hundred years ago. It is past time all parts of government be subject to the consent of the govern.
#4
SM - Oh, no - I think the Kelo decision is insane, a socialist's wet dream. It guts one of the keystones of our Constitution. There will be hell to pay for this before it's all said and, especially, done. I have no difficulty imagining someone could even die defending his property.
I wrote what I did because there was some talk about the separation between State and Federal Law - with State trumping Federal, yadda3 -- guaranteed to confuse people. It needed clarification. Nothing trumps a SCOTUS ruling.
Additionally, the Supreme Court only takes cases where it is determined that new law is being set, thus requiring their interpretation, or old law is being applied in a manner that opens new legal ground, also requiring their interpretation. Such "new" legal precedents require a ruling regards constitutionality -- which puts to rest the other major talking point I kept seeing that this has always happened and there was nothing new in the decision. Wrong - that's why SCOTUS accepted the case.
The Constitution trumps all other laws.
SCOTUS is the final arbiter of the Constitution's meaning.
Q.E.D.
Pisses me off more than I can say, I assure you. And I believe that, unless somehow strictly moderated or re-interpreted, it will be challenged physically, since all other recourse is denied. Those 5 Justices have declared open season on private property. Not many other things could generate the vehement response that I believe is coming. It will start small, a case here and there, but once the local and State Govts realize just what they've been handed, it will blossom into a major land grab with deadly consequences. Who's to stop them?
#5
Well Al Gore invented the internet and the Supreme Court is doing it's best to destroy it:
"The Supreme Court gave the entertainment industry a new legal weapon for fighting Internet privacy, ruling today that Web companies that encourage computer users to download free copies of music or movies can be held liable for the industry's losses.
The 9-0 ruling may be the most important copyright decision of the Internet era.
The justices firmly rejected the view that computer companies and software makers have a right to freely share copyrighted music and movies online.
Instead, they said these companies are guilty of violating the copyright laws if they make a business out of helping others make free copies of protected works."
So what's next? Blocking the CTRL+C keys on your keyboard? No more right mouse clicks to save "copyrighted" pics?
#6
Well said, TGA. I believe the MPAA / RIAA must have the best legal team on the planet. They get everything they want and win every case no matter how obtuse. And, with this one, the software companies, from Microsoft on down to the guys peddling DSS code, will be jointly liable for whatever wild-assed number the MPAA / RIAA dreams up.
They figured it out - go for the deep pockets.
I've never seen addressed, in any of these court cases, the absolute fact that most people (who swap movies, for instance,) would NOT have paid for the privilege - making the "lost revenues" figures bandied about total fiction.
#7
Well .com, I don't expect the copyright mafia to be expropriated for the common good, right?
Of course MPAA/RIAA indulge in total fiction. They could as well sue radio stations for playing a song too often, because people don't buy it anymore.
I tell you a funny example. This winter a very stupid, but somewhat endearing children's song abou a young crocodile was circulated on Kazaa and the like. No CD had been made. It got downloaded 1000000s of times for what reason ever. A radio station discovered the song and soon it became popular in the airwaves. Only now a CD was made and sold and despite the fact that most people had already downloaded the song (and it continued to be available), the CD sold over a million copies.
The truth is that people don't buy most movies or films they like, and even less of what they download. They buy that SPECIAL one, for what reasons ever. How many records could you afford as a teen? How many CDs can a student buy?
Most songs that I ... umm...would download are songs I couldn't even buy if I wanted to.
Music marketing is as mafioso as it comes. You want two or three songs of a group and you are FORCED to buy ten, at ridiculously inflated prices. Except for the big stars the musicians hardly get 5% of the sale.
When they showed a press preview of Spielberg's "War of the Worlds" they filmed the moviegoers during the entire session with infrared cameras to make sure nobody uses a device to film or photograph.
The music industry now sells crippled copy protected CDs that won't even play in my car, let alone on my computer.
MPAA/RIAA treat their customers as enemies and potential thieves. Let's return the favor.
#8
.com - State law can't trump Federal law or Constitution, but there's another wrinkle here. The law on eminent domain in CT is one of the 4 or 5 most sweeping in the nation. In the other 45 or so states, a local government couldn't do what New London did in Kelo because their state law wouldn't permit it. Kelo doesn't require all states to adopt the CT standard. It does permit them to, which is bad enough.
My guess is that a lot more states will be tightening their laws rather than broadening them in the next few years. If not, our status as a free nation is gone.
#9
It appears the SCOTUS is actually the court of the Corperate Rich, screw the US Constution. Can you imagine this is considered to be a "conservative" court. Imagine what it would be like if Hillary stacked it with liberals?
I lost respect for the "law" along time ago. There is no "law" or justice here. We are heading down the tubes.
#10
"Most songs that I ... umm...would download are songs I couldn't even buy if I wanted to."
Lol - got you hesitating to even say it! And I agree completely - the price for getting old - all our stuff is "out of print" damnit!
You're absolutely right - people buy what "hits the spot" - something they believe they'll never tire of and, most likely, has been associated with something positive. That, to me, explains why a song that gets heavy air-play still sells - it evokes a good feeling... and still will 10 years later. Why I still get that certain "funny feeling" (Lol!) when I hear certain tunes from my fogged-windows back-seat days, lol! Faces and, umm, other things, jump out from deep memories... Went to the drive-in and couldn't see a damned thing within 10 minutes of parking - but not a word of complaint, lol!
I won't buy protected goods, either - and that eliminates all of the DVD's. But there's even a way around that, too, and I don't mean cracking their protection scheme - there's a much simpler way. Sigh, I wish it was copacetic to put a live email out there, but I refuse to be a target for the trolls I feed on, or get spidered by some bot.
#13
VAMark - Think about it. If the law says eminent domain is limited - in ANY way contrary to the SCOTUS ruling, it can (and will) be challenged by someone who wants to do the same thing as in the Kelo case. So the law will be challenged - initially in state court. You're a judge of the court. What is your duty? Uphold a restrictive State Law which is contrary to a Supreme Court decision? Not fucking likely.
I repeat:
The Constitution is the a priori Law of the Land. It trumps everything.
SCOTUS is the sole arbiter for interpreting what it means. Their rulings trump everything.
And the restrictive law? If contrary to a SCOTUS ruling it is defacto unconstitutional. NO court will knowingly rule contrary to a SCOTUS ruling.
The complainant, wanting to challenge the lack of eminent domain action when he/she can demonstrate that it will be "for the public benefit" because of, for example, higher tax generation, will simply challenge the constitutionality of the law. And it will fall before this SCOTUS ruling.
You are not protected. Geez, I'm running out of different ways to say it. I surrender. I quit. We shall see, won't we?
#16
SPoD -- Initially I thought you were wrong about this being a supposedly conservative court until I did a little research and learned that 7 of the 9 were appointed by Republican presidents!
The dissenters in this case were O'Connor (appointed by Reagan), Rehnquist (Nixon), Thomas (Bush 41), and Scalia (Reagan).
Stevens (Ford), Kennedy (Reagan), Souter (Bush 41), Ginsburg (Clinton), and Breyer (Clinton) were the majority that passed this crap that continues the trend of shredding our Constitution.
At least Clinton can be satisfied with his cronies furthering the socialist agenda!
As a side note, I got a call from the PP-G. They're considering my letter for publication!
Posted by: Dar ||
06/27/2005 18:41 Comments ||
Top||
#17
This was just another way of pushing aside those pesky little people, who hold out to the bitter end, in hopes of landing a big fat check from that big fat land developer. Anyone who has read about Trump's real estate deals in Atlantic City and New York City, will know what I'm talking about.
Trouble is, that's how it's supposed to be, isn't it, in the land of the free? If you want something of mine really badly... pay for it!! Or build your way around it (as Trump did in some cases).
Well now SCOTUS has screwed those pesky little people, getting rid of that headache once and for all, leaving it for the local cops to deal the final blow (the eviction, the inevitable shoot outs, etc, etc). Glorious day for communism.
Posted by: Rafael ||
06/27/2005 22:57 Comments ||
Top||
Karl Rove, the alleged mad genius of political campaigning, is in really hot water. Or is it really cold water? Or, maybe thatâs just loud rap music playing in the background. Forgive me if I get my Nazi-like torture techniques mixed up. In any event, Karl Rove is in trouble. Something remarkably outrageous had to be said in order for Hillary Clinton, Charles Schumer, Howard Dean, Harry Reid, and John Kerry to demand that Rove âapologize or resignâ approximately 18 seconds after Rove finished his speech.
This should be compared to the immediate calls for an apology that Senate Democrats launched at Dick Durbin for comparing the troops to a mob of fascist, murdering barbarians on the Senate floor last week.
Oh wait, that didnât happen.
Hysterical over-reaction is saved for the fully substantial comments made by a presidential advisor at a fund-raiser. Any day now Iâm expecting an apology from Rove. He will probably apologize for the liberalsâ misunderstanding of his comments. âHey, Iâm sorry you are an idiot, apology accepted?â
What Rove said is quite groundbreaking. After likening Hillary Clinton to Adolf Hitler, Robert Byrd, to the Grandmaster of the KKK, and Michael Moore to âthat guy who orders a diet Coke with his super-sized #7, â he announced that Ted Kennedy had become the latest recipient of the Betty Ford Alcoholic Awareness program. Okay, so none of that happened either. But at least if it did happen the Democrats would actually have had something to complain about. (And, inasmuch as most of that is fairly accurate, they would have been really, really mad.)
What Rove did say was--and be warned this is really shocking--that âconservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers.â Yawn. Not only is this factually true, but it has been said a million times before and even by the president himself while campaigning this past year. My guess is the Democrats are trying to get the heat off of Durbin, who offered a faux-pology, for awhile. Not going to work, but nice try guys.
Democrats, of course, call Roveâs remarks preposterous. Unfortunately for them, and because of that silly thing called the âinternet,â their comments are trapped in endless archives of hundreds of newspapers across the country. For those with short memories who canât remember all the way back to 2001 (and Iâm specifically referring to those people who suddenly think Hillary Clinton is a moderate), the truth can be quickly revisited, and equally inescapable, with a few clicks of the mouse. So despite their refutation that they did not want to âprepare indictmentsâ or try to understand âwhy the hate us,â they, sadly, canât hide from their own shadows.
It is quite simple really. Democrats wanted to arrest Osama bin Laden, Republicans wanted to kill him. Liberals wanted to âunderstandâ why militant Islamo-fasicts wanted to kill us and die for their cause, and conservatives understood what âmilitantâ and âfanaticalâ meant and wanted to help them in their cause: to die. If Rove was lying liberals would have brushed off his comments. But he wasnât, and that really infuriates them. But while liberals are wringing their hands over the truth, they are still ignoring the most serious and reckless charges lobbed by a Democrat against the troops since at least last month. With liberals itâs almost becoming a fascinating weekly routine. Lodge ridiculous accusations against the troops, say you love them, and apologize after the public is outraged.
From now on, Iâm employing the liberal slander exception in my own career. I can say anything mean and outrageous about liberals so long as I follow such comments with empty adoration. Therefore, liberals are a bunch of anti-American, flag burning, baby-killing, Jetta-driving hippies who hate the troops, smell like the French, and live off the government in a massive conspiracy to destroy America. But all is fair, and donât criticize me, because I support the liberals.
About the Writer: Dustin Hawkins is a freelance writer and graduate student at Florida Atlantic University. His website is: http://www.dustinmhawkins.com/ . Dustin receives e-mail at dustinmhawkins@yahoo.com.
Posted by: Bobby ||
06/27/2005 09:01 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I caught a snippet of Stephanopolis last night. They were on about the Rove comments and they actually got George Will to admit "Rove made a mistake". And I had to be, once again, impressed at the Democratic party's ability to change the subject. Even if Karl Rove made "a mistake", which I don't believe, then his comments were hardly more worthy of discussion than were Durbin's comparison of Gitmo to gulags, that inspired Rove's remark.
Ahhh...how well the those Dems shake the shiny keys to fill the airwaves with endless, repetive mantras that Republicans are bad, bad, very bad. I caught something right before that on Stephanopolis' show, can't recall what, where the all predictable discussion led to how George Bush was bad because of something, yawn, can't remember what. The People(TM) are upset with him because of something. It's downright boring and predictable to the point of becoming comic. Ok, so he's bad - have you got any other news?
I waded through the dimmy underground this morning. It's all the same predictable stuff, nothing new, nothing of real substance. Republicans are stupid. The war is failing. George Bush is a monkey with big ears.
Compare that to rantburg which has real reporting on what's really going on, not peanut throwing from the peanut gallery, though we get to do that too. Democrats have reduced themselves to "Vote for us because GW is a monkey who has big ears" and "war is bad for creatures and other living things". Yeah, but lately, some of us have noticed that so is mass starvation and genocide by tyrants.
The thust of George Wills complaint against Rove was that Rove was unfairly lumping well meaning liberals into the same barrel as Michael Moore, and that's just not right cause there are some are good, happy liberal folk, who wish for peace and prosperity.
Yeah, well, it's about as meaningful as all of those peaceful Muslims who refuse to condemn beheadings, blowing up the the WTC and do little more than complain that the soldiers didn't put their gloves on when handling the Koran, while they call for the death to America in their Friday sermons. It's not that we don't doubt that there are many peaceful Muslims and many peaceful liberals, it's just that if they won't stand up, then they can't be counted.
#2
The thust of George Wills complaint against Rove was that Rove was unfairly lumping well meaning liberals into the same barrel....
Unfair? Durbin's comments and the deafening roar of Democratic reaction (oh, wait, that was only Mayor Daley), the Democrats/liberals are firmly on the record as being the party of terrorist rights and jihadi group hugs. If they can win elections with that on their resume, then there's no hope for us anyhow. However, I suspect they can't which is why Rove said what he did.
Which is why Rove is paid the big bucks to win presidential campaigns and Will sits around kibbitzing with yo-yos like Stephanapoopalis.
That is malicious, gratuitous, and completely unfair.
I like it.
Posted by: Darth VAda ||
06/27/2005 20:22 Comments ||
Top||
#6
You know the Failed Left - want America to obey the UNO whose Mandates are NOT to be followed or obeyed except via Media propaganda; want POTUS's and Pols who make promises but then don't keep them, and argue that GITMO and GLAZE/CHRISTINA-GATE = Soviet Gulag or Auschwitz, where milyuuuhns and zilyuuhns are horribly tortured and maimed eating gourmet chicken and seeing scantily-clad female boobies!? AND, are "forced" FORCED F-O-R-C-E-D To behave militantly and obscenely because of the actions of GOP-Right, and just because the GOP-Right or Anyone doesn't know what the the hell was done wrong first doesn't mean the GOP-Right weren't criminal brutes and thugs, brutish and thuggish, to begin with!?
Preaching to the choir in RB! What's the Statfor analysis btw? "America's Secret war" book by Friedman?
While I agree completely that President Bush has done a poor job of explaining the need for the Iraq War (and I cannot explain why, although the Stratfor analysis may be the correct one), I explained it in the article "It Will Be The End of Liberalism" last October. (Go Here).
I can summarize it very quickly. A century from now, maybe a half century from now, the world will either resemble the US - dominated by regimes that protect political freedom, religious freedom, economic freedom, and representative government of some kind - or it will be the Third Caliphate - the Eternal Islamic Reich .
The Islamic world is at a cross road - either it will go the way of the radical Jihadis, who are willing to kill anyone to impose their imperialism, or it will go the way of the moderates who wish to live in peace with those of other religions, but are unwilling to engage in terrorism to enforce their agenda. The Islamic world is having its Inquisition, its Crusades, and its Reformation - all at the same time, and it is anybody's guess, which will win out - the Inquisition and the Crusade, or the Reformation.
But, since those who are willing to kill indiscriminately always have a tactical advantage over those who do not, guess who is most likely to win this debate?
The US is intervening, as it should, in the hope that it can nudge the debate toward moderation and tolerance of multiculturalism and diversity. Toward the Reformation.
This effort may or may not succeed. If it does not, it will presage the end of Western Civilization as we know it, the end of classical Liberalism, and Modern Liberalism, since it will signal that America and Western Civilization are unwilling to do whatever it takes to defend its existence against radicalized Islam. And the next century will not belong to America, but to Islam, not a modern, liberal Islam, but a conservative, reactionary Islam, to the Taliban, to Al Qaeda, to the Sharia.
And for those who are getting all excited, hysterical indeed, about the Downing Street Memo - you may (or may not) remember that the US has been at war with Iraq since 1991.
After the Gulf War there was never a peace treaty, or a surrender. There was a cease-fire contingent on Iraq's compliance with UN Security Council Resolutions, with which Saddam never complied. The US patrolled the "no fly zone" throughout the Clinton administration, and escalated to bombing and missile attacks on Iraqi military targets several times during the Clinton administration.
I never heard libs and dems complain about this during the Clinton administration. They only complain when a Republican does it. The hypocrisy reeks. And the intellectual dishonesty stinks
If the US began taking out Iraqi military targets in 2002 and early 2003, before the invasion of Iraq - my opinion? Not a moment too soon, in fact, it should have been done ten years sooner. In my opinion, the Saddam Hussein regime should have been terminated in 1991. It didn't happen, so 2003, 2004, 2005, is a helluva lot better than never.
Hitler staged his Beer Hall Putsch in, what was it, 1932? - with a few dozen of his buddies who became known as The Brown Shirts. Every revolution starts small. If Hitler had been taken out in 1938 (as Churchill wanted to do) or before, it would have saved the world a World War. Same with Al Qaeda, Saddam, the Islamists, the Jihad, whatever you want to call them - the sooner the better. We can either deal with them before they get nukes, or after they get nukes.
Take your pick.
About the Writer: Raymond Kraft is a lawyer and writer living and working in Northern California. Raymond receives e-mail at rskraft@vfr.net.
#1
More shit-for-brains ravings. moderation and tolerance of multiculturalism and diversity Yeah, that will solve all the world's ills and get everyone a pony as well.
#2
Of course if muslims win over the "West", they'll have to deal with India and China. Wonder how much time Chinese will spend explaining that they respect RoP, and are only fighting terrorism.
Old (october 2004), but still makes a good point.
It Will Be the Death of Liberalism
Sixty-three years ago, Nazi Germany had overrun almost all of Europe and hammered England to the verge of bankruptcy and defeat, and had sunk more than four hundred British ships in their convoys between England and America for food and war materials.
Bushido Japan had overrun most of Asia, beginning in 1928, killing millions of civilians throughout China, and impressing millions more as slave labor.
The United States was in an isolationist and pacifist mood, and most Americans and Congress wanted nothing to do with the European war, or the Asian war.
Then along came Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, and in outrage Congress unanimously declared war on Japan, and the following day on Germany, which had not attacked us.
It was a dicey thing. We had few allies.
France was not an ally, for the Vichy government of France aligned with its German occupiers. Germany was not an ally, for it was an enemy, and Hitler intended to set up a Thousand Year Reich in Europe. Japan was not an ally, for it was intent on owning and controlling all of Asia. Japan and Germany had long-term ideas of invading Canada and Mexico, and then the United States over the north and south borders, after they had settled control of Asia and Europe.
America's allies then were England, Ireland, Scotland, Canada, Australia, and Russia, and that was about it. There were no other countries of any size or military significance with the will and ability to contribute much of anything to the effort to defeat Hitler's Germany and Japan, and prevent the global dominance of Nazism. And we had to send millions of tons of arms, munitions, and war supplies to Russia, England, and the Canadians, Aussies, Irish, and Scots, because none of them could produce all they needed for themselves.
All of Europe, from Norway to Italy, except Russia in the east, was already under the Nazi heel.
America was not prepared for war. America had stood down most of its military after World War I and throughout the depression. At the outbreak of World War II there were army soldiers training with broomsticks over their shoulders because they didn't have guns, and using cars with ''tank'' painted on the doors because they didn't have tanks. And a big chunk of our navy had just been sunk and damaged at Pearl Harbor.
Britain had already gone bankrupt, saved only by the donation of $600 million in gold bullion in the Bank of England that was the property of Belgium and was given by Belgium to England to carry on the war when Belgium was overrun by Hitler. Actually, Belgium surrendered one day, because it was unable to oppose the German invasion, and the Germans bombed Brussells into rubble the next day anyway, just to prove they could.
Britain had been holding out for two years already in the face of staggering shipping loses and the near-decimation of its air force in the Battle of Britain, and was saved from being overrun by Germany only because Hitler made the mistake of thinking the Brits were a relatively minor threat that could be dealt with later and turning his attention to Russia, at a time when England was on the verge of collapse in the late summer of 1940.
Russia saved America's rear by putting up a desperate fight for two years until the United States got geared up to begin hammering away at Germany. Russia lost something like 24 million people in the sieges of Stalingrad and Moscow, 90% of them from cold and starvation, mostly civilians, but also more than a million soldiers. More than a million! Had Russia surrendered, then, Hitler would have been able to focus his entire campaign against the Brits, then America, and the Nazis would have won that war.
Had Hitler not made that mistake and invaded England in 1940 or 1941, instead, there would have been no England for the United States and the Brits to use as a staging ground to prepare an assault on Nazi Europe. England would not have been able to run its North African campaign to help take a little pressure off Russia while America geared up for battle, and today Europe would very probably be run by the Nazis, the Third Reich, and, isolated and without any allies (not even the Brits). The United States would very probably have had to cede Asia to the Japanese, who were basically Nazis by another name then, and the world we live in today would be very different and much worse.
I say this to illustrate that turning points in history are often dicey things. And we are at another one.
There is a very dangerous minority in Islam that either has--or wants to have, and may soon have--the ability to deliver small nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, almost anywhere in the world, unless it is prevented from doing so.
France, Germany, and Russia, have been selling these Islamics nations weapons technology at least as recently as 2002, as have North Korea, Syria, and Pakistan--paid for with billions of dollars that Saddam Hussein skimmed from the "Oil For Food" program administered by the United Nations with the complicity of Kofi Annan and his son.
The Jihadis, or the militant Muslims, are basically Nazis in Kaffiyahs. They believe that Islam, a radically conservative (definitely not liberal!) form of Wahhabi Islam, should own and control the Middle East first, then Europe, then the world, and that all who do not bow to Allah should be killed, enslaved, or subjugated. They want to finish the Holocaust, destroy Israel, and purge the world of Jews. This is what they say.
There is also a civil war raging in the Middle East--for the most part not a hot war, but a war of ideas. Islam is having its Inquisition and its Reformation today, but it is not yet known which will win--the Inquisition, or the Reformation.
If the Inquisition wins, then the Wahhabis, or the Jihadis, will control the Middle East, and the OPEC oil, and the United States, European, and Asian economies--the techno-industrial economies--will be at the mercy of OPEC. This is not an OPEC dominated by the well-educated and rational Saudis of today, but an OPEC dominated by the Jihadis.
You want gas in your car? You want heating oil next winter? You want jobs? You want the dollar to be worth anything? You better hope the Jihad, the Muslim Inquisition, loses, and the Islamic Reformation wins.
If the Reformation movement wins, that is, the moderate Muslims who believe that Islam can respect and tolerate other religions, and live in peace with the rest of the world, and move out of the 10th Century into the 21st Century, then the troubles in the Middle East will eventually fade away, and a moderate and prosperous Middle East will emerge.
We have to help the Reformation win, and to do that we have to fight the Inquisition, i.e., the Wahhabi movement, the Jihad, Al Qaeda, the Islamic terrorist movements.
We have to do it somewhere.
We cannot do it nowhere. And we cannot do it everywhere at once.
We have created a focal point for the battle now at the time and place of our choosing, in Iraq. Not in New York, not in London, or Paris, or Berlin, but in Iraq, where we did and are doing two very important things:
(1) We deposed Saddam Hussein. Whether Saddam Hussein was directly involved in 9/11 or not, it is indisputed that Saddam has been actively supporting the terrorist movement for decades. Saddam is a terrorist. Saddam is, or was, a weapon of mass destruction, who is responsible for the deaths of probably more than a million Iraqis and two million Iranians.
(2) We created a battle, a confrontation, a flash point, with Islamic terrorism in Iraq. We have focused the battle. We are killing bad guys there, and the ones we get there we won't have to get here, or anywhere else. We also have a good shot at creating a democratic, peaceful Iraq, which will be a catalyst for democratic change in the rest of the Middle East, and an outpost for a stabilizing American military presence in the Middle East for as long as it is needed.
The Euros could have done this, but they didn't, and they won't. We now know that rather than opposing the rise of the Jihad, the French, Germans, and Russians were selling them arms. We have found more than a million tons of weapons and munitions in Iraq. If Iraq was not a threat to anyone, why did Saddam need a million tons of weapons?
And Iraq was paying for French, German, and Russian arms with money skimmed from the United Nations Oil For Food Program (supervised by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan and his son) that was supposed to pay for food, medicine, and education, for Iraqi children.
World War II, the war with the German and Japanese Nazis, really began with a ''whimper'' in 1928. It did not begin with Pearl Harbor. It began with the Japanese invasion of China. It was a war for fourteen years before America joined it. It officially ended in 1945--a 17-year war--and was followed by another decade of United States occupation in Germany and Japan to get those countries reconstructed and running on their own again--a 27-year war. World War II cost the United States an amount equal to approximately a full year's GDP--adjusted for inflation, equal to about $12 trillion dollars. World War II cost America more than 400,000 killed in action, and nearly 100,000 still missing in action.
[The Iraq war has, so far, cost the United States about $120 billion, which is roughly what 9/11 cost New York. It has also cost about 1,000 American lives, which is roughly 1/3 of the 3,000 lives that the Jihad snuffed on 9/11.]
But the cost of not fighting and winning World War II would have been unimaginably greater: a world now dominated by German and Japanese Nazism.
Americans have a short attention span, now, conditioned I suppose by 30-minute television shows and 2-hour movies in which everything comes out okay. The real world is not like that. It is messy, uncertain, and sometimes bloody and ugly. It always has been, and probably always will be.
If we do this thing in Iraq successfully, it is probable that the Reformation will ultimately prevail. Many Muslims in the Middle East hope it will. We will be there to support it. It has begun in some countries, Libya, for instance. And Dubai. And Saudi Arabia. If we fail, the Inquisition will probably prevail, and terrorism from Islam will be with us for all the foreseeable future, because the people of the Inquisition, or Jihad, believe that they are called by Allah to kill all the Infidels, and that death in Jihad is glorious.
The bottom line here is that we will have to deal with Islamic terrorism until we defeat it, whenever that is. It will not go away on its own. It will not go away if we ignore it.
If the United States can create a reasonably democratic and stable Iraq, then we have an ''England'' in the Middle East, a platform from which we can work to help modernize and moderate the Middle East. The history of the world is the clash between the forces of relative civility and civilization, and the barbarians clamoring at the gates. The Iraq war is merely another battle in this ancient and never-ending war. And now, for the first time ever, the barbarians are about to get nuclear weapons. Unless we prevent them. Or somebody does.
The Iraq war is expensive, and uncertain, yes. But the consequences of not fighting it and winning it will be horrifically greater. We have four options:
1. We can defeat the Jihad now, before it gets nuclear weapons.
2. We can fight the Jihad later, after it gets nuclear weapons (which may be as early as next year, if Iran's progress on nuclear weapons is what Iran claims it is).
3. We can surrender to the Jihad and accept its dominance in the Middle East, now, in Europe in the next few years or decades, and ultimately in America.
4. Or we can stand down now, and pick up the fight later when the Jihad is more widespread and better armed, perhaps after the Jihad has dominated France and Germany and maybe most of the rest of Europe. It will be more dangerous, more expensive, and much bloodier then.
Yes, the Jihadis say that they look forward to an Islamic America. If you oppose this war, I hope you like the idea that your children, or grandchildren, may live in an Islamic America under the Mullahs and the Sharia, an America that resembles Iran today.
We can be defeatist, as many Democrats and liberals, peace-activists, and anti-war types seem to be, and concede or surrender to the Jihad--or we can do whatever it takes to win this war against them.
The history of the world is the history of civilizational clashes, or cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas--ideas about what society and civilization should be like--and the most determined always win. Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.
In the 20th Century, it was western democracy vs. communism, and before that western democracy vs. Nazism, and before that Western democracy vs. German Imperialism. Western democracy won, three times, but it wasn't cheap, fun, nice, easy, or quick. Indeed, the wars against German Imperialism (World War I), Nazi Imperialism (World War II), and communist imperialism (the 40-year Cold War that included the Vietnam Battle, commonly called the Vietnam War, but itself a major battle in a larger war) covered almost the entire century.
The first major war of the 21st Century is the war between Western Judeo/Christian Civilization and Wahhabi Islam. It may last a few more years, or most of this century. It will last until the Wahhabi branch of Islam fades away, or gives up its ambitions for regional and global dominance and Jihad, or until Western Civilization gives in to the Jihad.
Senator John Kerry, in the debates and almost daily, makes three specious claims:
1. We went to Iraq without enough troops.
We went with the troops the United States military wanted. We went with the troop levels that General Tommy Franks asked for. We deposed Saddam in 30 days with light casualties, much lighter than we expected.
The real problem in Iraq is that we are trying to be nice; we are trying to fight the 1% of the population that is Jihadi, and trying to avoid killing the 99% of the population that is not a threat. We could flatten Fallujah in minutes with a flight of B52s, or seconds with one nuclear cruise missile--but we don't. We're trying to do brain surgery, not cut off the patient's head. The Jihadis amputate heads.
2. We went to Iraq with too little planning.
This is a specious argument too, for it supposes that if we had just had ''the right plan'' the war would have been easy, cheap, quick, and clean. That is not an option. It is a guerrilla war against a determined enemy, and no such war ever has been or ever will be easy, cheap, quick, and clean. This is not television!
3. We proved ourselves incapable of governing and providing security.
This, too, is a specious argument. It was never our intention to govern and provide security. It was our intention from the beginning to do just enough to enable the Iraqis to develop a representative government and their own military and police forces to provide their own security, and that is happening. The United States and the Brits and other countries there have trained over 100,000 Iraqi police and military, now, and will have trained more than 200,000 by the end of next year. We are in the process of transitioning operational control for security back to Iraq. It will take time. It will not go without hitches. This is not television.
Remember, perspective is everything, and America's schools teach too little history. The Cold War lasted from about 1947 to 1989--at least until the Berlin Wall came down in 1989. Forty-two years. Europe spent the first half of the 19th century fighting Napoleon, and from 1870 to 1945 fighting Germany. World War II began in 1928, lasted 17 years, plus a ten year occupation, and the United States still has troops in Germany and Japan. World War II resulted in the death of more than 50 million people, maybe more than 100 million people, depending on which estimates you accept.
The United States has taken a little more than 1,000 Killed-in-Action (KIA) in Iraq. The United States took more than 4,000 KIA on the morning of June 6, 1944, the first day of the Normandy Invasion to rid Europe of Nazi Imperialism. In World War II the United States averaged 2,000 KIA a week for four years. Most of the individual battles of World War II lost more Americans than the entire Iraq war has done so far.
But the stakes are at least as high: a world dominated by representative governments with civil rights, human rights, and personal freedoms--or a world dominated by a radical Islamic Wahhabi movement, and by the Jihad, under the Mullahs and the Sharia.
I do not understand why the American left does not grasp this. Too much television, I guess.
The liberals are supposed to be in favor of human rights, civil rights, liberty, freedom, and all that. But not for Iraqis, I guess. In America, but nowhere else. The 300,000 Iraqi bodies in mass graves in Iraq, not our problem. The United States population is about twelve times that of Iraq, so let's multiply 300,000 by twelve. What would you think if there were 3,600,000 American bodies in mass graves in America because of George Bush? Would you want another country to help liberate America?
''Peace Activists'' always seem to demonstrate where it's safe and ineffective to do so: in America. Why don't we see liberal peace activists demonstrating in Iran, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, North Korea, in the places in the world that really need peace activism the most?
The liberals are supposed to be in favor of human rights, civil rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc., but if the Jihad wins, wherever the Jihad wins, it is the end of civil rights, human rights, democracy, multiculturalsim, diversity, etc. American liberals who oppose the liberation of Iraq are coming down on the side of their own worst enemy. If the Jihad wins, it is the death of Liberalism. Everywhere the Jihad wins, it is the death of Liberalism.
And American liberals just don't get it.
About the Writer: Raymond Kraft is a lawyer and writer living and working in Northern California. Raymond receives e-mail at rskraft@vfr.net.
#1
Far too long and the writer needs to learn something about the facts of history. The Irish were neutral throughout the war and the Scots, Welsh, English, Canadians and Australians were all part of single entity, namely the British Empire, i.e. they were not independant states.
#2
Not to mention that Napoleon abdicated in 1815 so Europe didn't spend half a century fighting Napoleon, not to mention the fact that the Red Army lost some 5 million soldiers in 1941 alone (alongside with 5 million prisonners, vodka-drinking surrenderring monkeys anyone?), not to mention the many, many other factual errors.
When you want to draw conclusions you firt get your facts straight.
Phil_b
Even if they were closer to Great Britain than mere allies the fact is that the Commonweallth countries were independent states, even if the King was supposedly their common head of state: It was a very, very close vote who brought South Africa in the war and it was teh Australian governemnt, not Churchill, who had the final say on the use of Ausdtralian troops: the Australian government recalled the Australian troops from Middle East and when Churchill tried to have them deployed at Singapore (thinking the Japanese could not leave Singapore behind) he was overruled by the Australian governement.
You are right for Ireland (neutral) and Scotland (part of the United Kingdom)
#4
Liberals protest in nice safe places because they are cowards who are unwilling to help those in need to fight for peace. It wouldn't bother so much if they didn't get in the way and just make themselves feel important by sniping at those who actually do something.
I'm against hunger. Sadly, I don't help at the soup kitchens, but if I say I'm AGAINST HUNGER, then that's good enough, right? I guess I'm an even better person when I complain that others, who try to do something, aren't doing it right.
#5
The problem with Libralism today is not that they are stupid or that they are not believing in thier values. The problem is the Democratic party has been overwhelmed with LLL's radicals that for the most part want to see america and our current system fail and fall apart so they can institute their ideas into order. They are a loose group of Socialist (polar opposite capitollist) Enviromentalist (anti-coorporation especially US capalism) Athiest (anti-religion hense in-god-we-trust on the money just dont work) Self Hating rich kids (usually colledge kids well to do sheltered full of guilt or propoganda or both)
These people are not the majority but a small minority who with the help of a supporting media have done much to further their goal. Hopefully things can be turned hopefully????
#6
I guess you mean something else when you say liberals. "Liberals" in my book means dumbing down for the lowest common denominator. Liberal means pussy. They are pussies when it comes to improving education, they are pussies in dealing with tyrants, they are pussies in dealing with crime, pussies in dealing with drugs. Just about any difficult social problem you can deal with their solution has always been to throw money at it and lower the standard. oooooh...but somebody might get hurt..somebodies self-esteem might be damaged.
I always thought a good and true bumper sticker for "liberals" as they have defined themselves would be, "lower standards and proud of it".
Name one thing in the 20th Century that you can look to liberals for making anything better? Women's rights? Bah, the birth control pill did 99% of the heavy lifting. I'm personally at a loss for any other great achievement to credit them for.
#7
SCOTUS gave itself judicial review - screw legislators - powers in Marbury v Madison (1804). Everyone knows what Madison did for a living. And Marbury? He was a judge, just like the members of SCOTUS, who claimed tenure even though no law gave that to judges. So much for impartiality and objectivity.
I wanted to wait until rollover to post this piece.
It is an incredibly hypocrytical if obtuse treatise on the evil right wing plans to "balance" Public Broadcasting
And in the interests of fairness and balancedness , I admit: Only the killing of CPB will cure it.
Despite his continued protestations to the contrary, itâs becoming harder and harder to believe the Corporation for Public Broadcastingâs chairman, Ken Tomlinson, when he says that his main concern is to try to bring some political âbalanceâ to PBSâs lineup. I agree with this this opening statement. You can't wash garbage.
While polls have shown that a majority of Americans donât see PBS as leaning one way or the other ideologically, Tomlinson seems to view programming choices in a starkly black-and-white manner; as he told NPRâs Bob Garfield on May 6, âI donât want to achieve balance by taking programs that are the favorites of good liberals off the air. I want to make sure that when you have programs that tilt left, we also have some programs that tilt right.â A reasonable statement if 20 years too late...
The problem is that, if his actions are any guide, administration-approved appointments, secret contracts with conservative content monitors and suppressing polls that refute his âliberal biasâ charge are part and parcel of his vision of balance. In effect, Tomlinson is stacking the deck so far to the right at the CPB that what he claims to see as balance, many others view as a right-wing coup in public broadcasting. Now there's a contradiction in terms. The right doesn't want a coup in Public Broadcasting. They want "the death panelty," And in this overhyped media saturated nation, it is amazing to me still that the left would make such charges as "suppressed opinion polls," given how slanted polls often are.
A Republican appointee originally named to the CPB board by President Clinton in 2000 and promoted to chairman by President Bush in September 2003, Tomlinson currently heads all of the countryâs publicly funded broadcasting â both domestically and internationally. In an unprecedented move, he also chairs the Broadcasting Board of Governors, which oversees U.S. government-sponsored, nonmilitary, international broadcasting, a dual role that no one has ever held before. Oh dear...
Recently, lawmakers on Capitol Hill have called for Tomlinson to resign from both posts because of his having spent close to $30,000, without the knowledge of CPBâs board, on consultants to monitor PBSâs content for âliberal biasâ and having hired a White House staffer to write rules for two other new content monitors â possible violations of federal law. Dja get that, folks? Rather than turn over material to a US attorney of evidence of a crime, this fella writes about "possible" violations of federal law.
These calls come at a critical time for the CPB, as the House Appropriations Committee just voted to cut its funding by about half (which, if it stands, would be the largest cut in its history), and the board is looking for a new president. Ahem: The funding "cut" is in terms of this pig's entire budget about 7.5 percent of its total. Institutions like NPR can suck off Joan Krocs money till hell freezes over without federal funding. This article doesn't mention that.
The past week has been a rough one for Tomlinson, with a veritable flood of evidence pointing to the hubris he has exhibited in trying to prove the âliberal biasâ in public broadcasting canard. Leftist bias is a foregone conclusion, IMHO. at CPB. It is far from a "canard."Late last week, the New York Times reported that Tomlinson had authorized, without the consent of the CPBâs board, $14,170 in payments to a consultant named Fred Mann. He tapped Mann to monitor the political leanings of guests on PBSâs âNowâ program, which was then hosted by Bill Moyers, for evidence of bias. According to reports, Mann labeled segments âpro-â or âanti-â Bush, and âanti-corporationâ or âanti-DeLay.â And I bet the bias is thick.
How do we know this? Not because Tomlinson released the information to the public. Rather, Sen. Byron Dorgan, a North Dakota Democrat, demanded to be provided with the information Mann gathered, and while his office would not release the data to the public or the media, Dorgan spoke on the Senate floor Monday, outlining some of his findings.
Meanwhile, there has been quite a bit of speculation about why Tomlinson would hire a guy in Indianapolis no one had ever heard of to monitor PBS. Who is Fred Mann? On Sunday, the Indianapolis Star almost unwittingly outed him, in the process providing a glimpse of Mannâs partisan credentials. In a short item on the controversy, the paper reported tracking down someone named Fred Mann, but couldnât find out if it had found the right one, concluding simply that âa Frederick W. Mann, 61, who has worked for the conservative National Journalism Center in Washington, has Indianapolis ties.â The smoking gun! A conservative!
Turns out they had the right Mann. And it gets even better: The National Journalism Center was founded by the American Conservative Union, which describes itself as âthe nationâs oldest conservative lobbying organization.â Oh dear.! Make the Pugh Foundation sound, erm... what was that about politics again?
More recently, the NJC has been run by the conservative Young Americaâs Foundation. Even if these were the only indications we had of Tomlinsonâs partisanship, they would still go a long way in calling into question his contention that he is merely taking an unbiased look at the political leanings of public broadcasting. Ya got 'em dead to rights. A conservative in CPB. I say cut funding to the CPB! That'll show 'em!
If that isnât enough to call his credibility into question, it appears that Tomlinson also lied to a member of Congress about the contract. According to the New York Times, in a letter dated May 24, he told Sen. Dorgan that he didnât consult with the CPBâs board about hiring Mann because it had been âapproved and signed by then CPB President, Kathleen Cox.â The only problem is, the contract is dated Feb. 3, 2004 â five months before Cox became president.
And the hits just keep coming. While Tomlinson has repeatedly said that he is not beholden to the wishes of the Bush administration â despite the fact that he seems to hire only from within its ranks â the most recent disclosures deal a death blow to his contention that he runs his shop independently of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
On Monday, NPRâs David Folkenflik came out with a damning report on NPRâs Web site, in which he reprinted excerpts from several e-mails Tomlinson sent to colleagues â essentially hanging him with his own words. I'd like to see the headers on that email. I trust this writer, but I want to verify it.
One e-mail concerned a proposal floated by Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., who wanted to give public television and radio stations more of a voice in naming board members to the CPB. On July 21, 2004, Tomlinson wrote to Kathleen Cox, the CPBâs CEO and president (who has since been forced out), that âthe White House has issued guidance. WH officially opposed to the Burns amendment.â
Jeffrey Chester of the Center for Digital Democracy, a media advocacy group, says of the most recent evidence: âThe Bush White House and the Republicans are behind Tomlinson, and they have no intention to drop their campaign against public broadcasting.â Good news then.
âKen Tomlinson is channeling Richard Nixon,â Chester adds. These wankers can't get passed watergate and the early seventies, can't they? âThese dirty tricks, backdoor communications with the White House, the purging of senior executives, recruiting top-level GOP operatives â all to scare public broadcasting officialsâ â are reminiscent of Nixonâs anti-public broadcasting crusade in the early â70s. This guy is making Nixon look pretty good.
In response to all this, on Tuesday, several lawmakers on Capitol Hill finally took Obey, Dingell and Dorganâs lead and began speaking out against Tomlinsonâs partisan power plays. Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., demanded that Tomlinson resign not only as chairman of the CPB but as chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors.
âMy opinion,â Markey said, âis that Ken Tomlinson has facilitated the attack upon the institution that he was tasked with protecting. If PBS is saved this week, it will not be because of Ken Tomlinson, it will be in spite of Ken Tomlinson. And as a result he should resign. In my opinion, because of his ideological attack on the other, international broadcasting board, he should resign from that as well.â Then Tomlinson is doing his job, if he has MAss lawmakers mad.
Markey made his remarks at rally on Capitol Hill to oppose the $200 million in cuts in federal funding for public broadcasting approved by the House Appropriations Committee on June 16. No politics here wiht a lawmaker making politics about this proposed funding "cut, "right? The committee passed a spending bill that would cut CPBâs funding by 25 percent next year, slashing it from the $400 million it received in 2005 to $300 million â but with other cuts in technological spending and specific programs set up for childrenâs educational programming, total cuts would reach about $200 million. I liked the $400 million "cut" much better.
Whatâs more, 16 senators â including Joe Lieberman and Chuck Schumer â banded together Tuesday to issue a statement calling for Tomlinsonâs dismissal.
Lieberman was the most vocal of the group, saying in the statement that âKenneth Tomlinsonâs actions call into question his commitment to public broadcasting and Americans would be better served with a less partisan leader of this important national treasure.â Lieberman also sent a letter to the Senate Appropriations subcommittee that has jurisdiction over the CPB to demand that it reject the cuts it earlier proposed.
Given all this, itâs pretty clear that itâs well past time for a serious conversation about how to continue to fund public broadcasting while keeping it free from political influence Including rallies attending by Congressfolks., since the current system, even if it survives Tomlinson, is obviously in the sights of the Bush administration. The Bush administration needs target practice thenâThis is a long-term war,â Chester says, âwhich the Republicans have been engaged in to weaken public broadcasting. I think itâs time to be realistic and admit that in the short term, this kind of federally funded system may not be able to thrive.â Be still my beating heart!
But how best to make it thrive? Thatâs the question many in the public and private sectors seem to be dodging. Whether Tomlinson survives the current controversy is somewhat irrelevant If it's "irrelevant, why'd you mention it> â what matters most is that the federal government make a serious commitment to the health of public broadcasting, and keep politics out of the equation. Palliative health care, as it were.
Some proposals, like the one recently floated by Markey, along with Sens. Christopher Dodd and Jim Jeffords, look better on first blush than they turn out to be on closer inspection. The trio has introduced the âDigital Opportunity Investment Trust Act,â which, if passed, would generate some revenue for public broadcasting â but not nearly enough to ensure its survival. The bill relies on the windfall (estimates put it at upward of $30 billion) the government is expected to receive in 2008 from the sale of TV spectrum rights. That $30 billion ought to be earmarked for tax cuts.
The problem is that under the bill, PBS stations would get only about 20 percent of the interest on the sale of some spectrum rights. Whatâs more, the funds would mainly be used for educational programming and âsoftware,â and not necessarily to support journalism.
Lawmakers should be applauded for finally stepping in and denouncing Tomlinson for the partisan player he is, But make sure you ignore the partisans holding rallies... but without some realistic and innovative plans to keep public broadcasting a healthy, nonpartisan alternative to commercial television, these battles are likely to be fought all over again in a few years.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
